Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 322 posts

Re: FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks

#71

Post by Cshelton »

arebop wrote: post #55
dopamean wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then why are Republicans against net neutrality? I suspect the answer is "money" and that the wrong people are greasing the right palms to get this done. If that really is the truth then why aren't companies in tech doing more of the same to protect their interests? How the hell is it that companies like Comcast have the upper hand here?

Comcast is/should be willing to spend the net present value of their future revenue streams to defend their monopoly. Ditto AT&T, Verizon, etc. The combined market cap of these companies is a pretty big lobbying bill to pay even for Apple, let alone Netflix. Google tried just building a competitive network but apparently they didn't have the stomach to combine network construction with lobbying at the necessary scale…

Yeah, Google realized just how entrenched the established telecom companies are with local municipalities. To the pint where the muni says, "only AT&T" can use OR put a pole in this area. Straight up block everyone else because AT&T pays the city to do that. How do you govern and take that on at a national scale. Not only the money, but the ridiculously massive amount of lobbying.

I think wireless point to point is the answer, and what Google is working on now after buying WebPass. You only have to connect a neighborhood and have one pool with a p2p receiver that services the whole neighborhood. A mini ISP if you will.

Then we can tell the corrupt city/local council people to F OFF and stop F'ing over your citizens by taking bribe deals from the large ISPs. It's pretty bad, see AT&T in Dallas, where they are head quartered. The corruption in the city that AT&T buys is crazy. Even another large competitor such as Spectrum wanting to put fiber down is blocked by the city because AT&T has exclusive rights. So what speed is offered in that area by AT&T? 3-6 fucking mbps. And they make you a great deal and only charge $30/m for it. Seriously, F them and the city.

I now have a direct p2p internet access point on the roof of my house that gets about 80mbps up and down for less than $30/month. My only other option in a well developed, dense area is 3mbps from AT&T. A block away, Spectrum installed fiber and they get 1 gig speeds. I fought it for months, the corruption goes deep. Fuck AT&T.

Re: FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks

#72

Post by wmf »

wav-part wrote: post #63

Is not net-neutrality better handled by IANA ? If you are going to call your router "internet", you must treat all IP packets equally. Seems like reasonable terms to me. Afterall this is the property that made Internet what it is today.

IANA has no enforcement authority. I also wouldn't be surprised to see ISPs respond by simply removing the word "Internet" from their advertising.

Re: FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks

#74

Post by JustSomeNobody »

rocky1138 wrote: post #61

Can't we just create our own local Intranets using Ethernet cables running around cul-de-sacs? Mine connects to yours which connects to his which connects to hers. Eventually we'll have formed a network.

Yes. Then eventually someone will come along and say, "i'll do it for you for a fee" and they'll get a bunch of customers and they'll own the cables and then rename themselves Comcast.

Re: FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks

#75

Post by rocky1138 »

JustSomeNobody wrote: post #74
rocky1138 wrote: post #61

Can't we just create our own local Intranets using Ethernet cables running around cul-de-sacs? Mine connects to yours which connects to his which connects to hers. Eventually we'll have formed a network.

Yes. Then eventually someone will come along and say, "i'll do it for you for a fee" and they'll get a bunch of customers and they'll own the cables and then rename themselves Comcast.

How about we make it a rule that if anyone wants access to the network they are not allowed to charge for it. It must be done only to help grow the network for its own sake.

Re: FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks

#77

Post by JustSomeNobody »

rocky1138 wrote: post #75
JustSomeNobody wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Then eventually someone will come along and say, "i'll do it for you for a fee" and they'll get a bunch of customers and they'll own the cables and then rename themselves Comcast.

How about we make it a rule that if anyone wants access to the network they are not allowed to charge for it. It must be done only to help grow the network for its own sake.

Someone will sue and then laws will be made. Whoever has the most money/best lawyers will win.

Re: FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks

#78

Post by wtallis »

grandalf wrote: post #59
jerkstate wrote: post #16

Does anyone with a strong understanding of internetworking, peering and transit contract negotiation actually believe that "net neutrality" is possible? traffic shaping of saturated links seems like a necessary outcome to not undermine the smaller users (i.e. low bandwidth communications) that are impacted by heavy users (i.e. video streaming) if two peering parties can't come to terms on cost sharing for link upgrad…

> actually believe that "net neutrality" is possible? I don't think very many of the net-neutrality zealots have much technical understanding of internetworking or how ISP business models work. Anything other than a dedicated, business class circuit has a lot of shaping and speculation baked in. This is why "residential" bandwidth is so much cheaper than dedicated. One commenter last time this came up mentioned that…

> The technical aspect of this that many people miss is that the same piece of cable can support very different traffic patterns AT THE EXPENSE OF other ones.

QoS isn't always a zero-sum game. Even non-interactive HTTP downloads benefit from reduced queuing latency, because TCP congestion control is more accurate when it gets timely feedback. On the flip side, explicit rules to never drop packets matching a certain signature often produces a negative sum game, and one that is easily abused.

Re: FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks

#79

Post by dnautics »

westbywest wrote: post #29
jerkstate wrote: post #16

Does anyone with a strong understanding of internetworking, peering and transit contract negotiation actually believe that "net neutrality" is possible? traffic shaping of saturated links seems like a necessary outcome to not undermine the smaller users (i.e. low bandwidth communications) that are impacted by heavy users (i.e. video streaming) if two peering parties can't come to terms on cost sharing for link upgrad…

There is a difference between shaping traffic to better fit the capacity available, and constricting traffic since you're incentivized to push alternate traffic from a business partner. The latter is what NN advocates are trying to discourage, and it does arguably mess with the 'level playing field' notion.

I don't think this distinction is as trivial as you think. Especially in a legal sense. Unless you want judges adjudicating in the Potter Stewart "I know it when I see it" sense, which can get scary.

Re: FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger rollbacks

#80

Post by grandalf »

wtallis wrote: post #78
grandalf wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> actually believe that "net neutrality" is possible? I don't think very many of the net-neutrality zealots have much technical understanding of internetworking or how ISP business models work. Anything other than a dedicated, business class circuit has a lot of shaping and speculation baked in. This is why "residential" bandwidth is so much cheaper than dedicated. One commenter last time this came up mentioned that…

> The technical aspect of this that many people miss is that the same piece of cable can support very different traffic patterns AT THE EXPENSE OF other ones. QoS isn't always a zero-sum game. Even non-interactive HTTP downloads benefit from reduced queuing latency, because TCP congestion control is more accurate when it gets timely feedback. On the flip side, explicit rules to never drop packets matching a certain s…

> QoS isn't always a zero-sum game.

True, I didn't mean to imply that. Just that if you have a network cable the QoS can be used in a lot of different ways to maximize the amount of information going over the cable, and that not all optimization schemes can be used at the same time.

Post reply on HN